Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Entwood on 24 April 2017, 20:08:50
-
Just a quick reminder that new speeding fines came into force today ... potentially a fine of 175% of your weekly wage ......
http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/speeding-revised-2017/
you may have to click the "band ranges" icon to open it out to see the ranges .. and remember .. if on a motorway it can be a Level 4 fine...
http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/using-the-mcsg/using-sentencing-council-guidelines/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/fines-and-financial-orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/9-maximum-fines/
:(
-
So more benefits for people on benefits that don't work then.
-
So now we'll all be good little boys and girls and adhere to the speed limits..........or trust to luck that we don't get caught 8)
-
These days can't even afford the fuel to speed let alone the fines. ::)
-
So more benefits for people on benefits that don't work then.
Somebody has to pay for the bone idle, as nobody is brave enough to shoot them
-
So more benefits for people on benefits that don't work then.
Somebody has to pay for the bone idle, as nobody is brave enough to shoot them
You are - vote to TB :y
-
One thing I don't get with this new rule, what if you don't have a job?
My wife does not have a job, yet drives?
-
Wont affect law abiding citizens like me. You criminals deserve all you get. :P ;D
-
One thing I don't get with this new rule, what if you don't have a job?
My wife does not have a job, yet drives?
You know the answer to this, they'll use the household income.
I don't see the problem with any of this; ANYONE that chooses to drive faster than the speed limit needs to be aware that there might be consequences. Those range from small fines, through large ones, points on your licence, stays in hospital or prison, or the possibility that you will hurt/maim/kill somebody. And personally, legally, professionally, ethically etc you won't have a leg to stand on.
If you can't face those consequences, don't speed. It really is that simple.
-
One thing I don't get with this new rule, what if you don't have a job?
My wife does not have a job, yet drives?
You know the answer to this, they'll use the household income.
I don't see the problem with any of this; ANYONE that chooses to drive faster than the speed limit needs to be aware that there might be consequences. Those range from small fines, through large ones, points on your licence, stays in hospital or prison, or the possibility that you will hurt/maim/kill somebody. And personally, legally, professionally, ethically etc you won't have a leg to stand on.
If you can't face those consequences, don't speed. It really is that simple.
Excellent post :y :y :y :y
-
One thing I don't get with this new rule, what if you don't have a job?
My wife does not have a job, yet drives?
You know the answer to this, they'll use the household income.
I don't see the problem with any of this; ANYONE that chooses to drive faster than the speed limit needs to be aware that there might be consequences. Those range from small fines, through large ones, points on your licence, stays in hospital or prison, or the possibility that you will hurt/maim/kill somebody.
If you can't face those consequences, don't speed. It really is that simple.
Well said that man & if your unemplyed TB may well be on the roof opposite your local Job Centre plus armed with his Armalite snipers rifle ;D
-
You know the answer to this, they'll use the household income.
Nope - that could end up punishing someone who hadn't committed any crime. The basic principle is that only the offender can be directly punished.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/fines-and-financial-orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/3-definition-of-relevant-weekly-income/
It basically works like this. AFAIK there is no legal requirement to submit details of your income to the court. If you don't, the courts set the fine based on either a "guess" at the offenders income, or (more likely) based on national average earnings (currently £440 p/w). If you earn less than average, then you submit your "true" earnings and the courts recalculate the fine. In effect it's a discount for low earners.
-
So earn above it, just don't say anything and get the average fine?
Also, everyone speeds. Everyone. Anyone who says they don't speed must be Labour MP's ::)
-
One thing I don't get with this new rule, what if you don't have a job?
My wife does not have a job, yet drives?
You know the answer to this, they'll use the household income.
I don't see the problem with any of this; ANYONE that chooses to drive faster than the speed limit needs to be aware that there might be consequences. Those range from small fines, through large ones, points on your licence, stays in hospital or prison, or the possibility that you will hurt/maim/kill somebody. And personally, legally, professionally, ethically etc you won't have a leg to stand on.
If you can't face those consequences, don't speed. It really is that simple.
Let's have some realistic limits then. Loads of NSL gave become 50, the dual carriageway by-pass around Bury was originally 40 but was reduced to 30 after an accident. The accident was due to excess speed, but he would have speeding what ever limit had been set. I'm sure everyone will have their local example.
-
How safe is to to have to watch the speedometer ALL the time, instead of the road ahead?
On that 150% of weekly income, surely all people, regardless of earnings, should be equal before the law?
If you extend that principle, I cannot afford the showroom price of a Rolls-Royce, so maybe they will sell me one for £10? Nor can I afford the £6 per gallon to run it, so I'm sure my local garage will let me have petrol for 10p per gallon..... :y
Ron.
-
Yes Ron, but the law and justice are distant cousins. ;)
-
It's known as being progressive Ron! ::) ;D
-
Anyone who describes themselves or their thoughts as progressive should be added to TB,s cull list. I hate that word. >:( ;D
-
Anyone who describes themselves or their thoughts as progressive should be added to TB,s cull list. I hate that word. >:( ;D
TB probably thinks his cull list is progressive! ;D
So...... ::) ;)
-
So now we'll all be good little boys and girls and adhere to the speed limits..........or trust to luck that we don't get caught 8)
I'm pretty good on non dual carriageway A and B roads, but motorways at 70 are just so mind numbingly boring. I wonder how many collisions are due to lack of attention etc due to sheer boredom. We'll never know
-
Anyone who describes themselves or their thoughts as progressive should be added to TB,s cull list. I hate that word. >:( ;D
TB probably thinks his cull list is progressive! ;D
So...... ::) ;)
Mmm, I doubt it. Probably common sense rather than progressive. I find it increasingly difficult to disagree with the idea tbh, but I (as a Brexiteer) am probably on it. ;D
-
So more benefits for people on benefits that don't work then.
Somebody has to pay for the bone idle, as nobody is brave enough to shoot them
I will........ when I come into power. :)
-
It's just GREED in action once again and nothing to do with safety - motorists are an easy target. Speed per se is not dangerous, but INAPPROPRIATE speed is. Imagine exercising your right to drive at 30 mph past a school at starting or finishing times, when youngsters are all over the place; you just wouldn't, would you. It is legal, but totally inappropriate.
You can find your own examples, but if policing were more about safety (???) and not revenue collection, maybe we could abandon speed limits altogether when people drive sensibly and responsibly, encouraged by policing with discretion and integrity.
If you don't have a dream.....(c.f. South Pacific, fot the older members).
Ron.
-
Brings it more into line with other forms of taxation, so hardly a surprise.
-
It's just GREED in action once again and nothing to do with safety - motorists are an easy target. Speed per se is not dangerous, but INAPPROPRIATE speed is. Imagine exercising your right to drive at 30 mph past a school at starting or finishing times, when youngsters are all over the place; you just wouldn't, would you. It is legal, but totally inappropriate.
You can find your own examples, but if policing were more about safety (???) and not revenue collection, maybe we could abandon speed limits altogether when people drive sensibly and responsibly, encouraged by policing with discretion and integrity.
If you don't have a dream.....(c.f. South Pacific, fot the older members).
Ron.
.
Could not agree more , anything to get more cash from an easy target well they won't be getting any from me , greedy bastards.
-
Of course, Morons like this don't help matters. If you can afford a McLaren / Ferrari / Lambo, then spend a few bob for a track day rather than using the M1 as your own personal racetrack. ::)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-39691960
-
Let's have some realistic limits then. Loads of NSL gave become 50, the dual carriageway by-pass around Bury was originally 40 but was reduced to 30 after an accident. The accident was due to excess speed, but he would have speeding what ever limit had been set. I'm sure everyone will have their local example.
I agree. The do-gooders around here were hell bent on getting the road from here to Banburyshire down to 50mph from NSL. It took years, but then there was a single accident caused by reckless driving that killed all 3 occupants, that took the number of deaths over a particular threshold to make it legally easier to adjust the limit, and it became 50mph.
Now there are more accidents, due to drivers getting frustrated with everyone driving at 40mph (round these parts, everyone drives at 10-15mph below the limit).
In addition to raising the limits to sensible levels, the limit should also be the target if its fine, dry and clear.
And they should bring back the green cross code man if the do-gooders want to stop little johnny getting mown down. It ain't the drivers fault if people step into roads without looking, too busy on their phones. I'm all for 30mph in built up areas (but not 20mph in most of the 20mph zones), but NOT for 40mph on the Milton Keynes dual carriageway grid roads, because the lame and lazy scum of society - resident sof the likes of Fishermead - can't be arsed to use the redways with bridges and underpasses, so play chicken crossing a dual carriageway.
Lastly, we need to shoot all parents who drive less than a mile to drop little Johnny off at school. Walking (with parents, or friends, or alone when a shade older) is a uselful life skill, teaching danger and common sense.
-
Yay! Let's all drive by numbers! :D
Whilst updating our Farcebook profiles, having a fag, etc., as those don't seem to be enforced al all. >:(
-
Yay! Let's all drive by numbers! :D
Whilst updating our Farcebook profiles, having a fag, etc., as those don't seem to be enforced al all. >:(
In twenty years time folk will look back and say do you remember when?...
You drove your own car on your own
people drove at different speeds.
tailgating was considered bad form and yet now we all drive along 10 feet from next vehicle all under computer guidance
people speeded
some people got fined for speeding
you could go out and drive whenever you liked and wherever without additional charge just tax on fuel
it was really hard to Instagram, titter or facebook while on the move
hand held mobiles( as opposed to the new imprinted ones) were frowned on
having a kip while driving was err dangerous and now we all do it.
-
Yay! Let's all drive by numbers! :D
Whilst updating our Farcebook profiles, having a fag, etc., as those don't seem to be enforced al all. >:(
In twenty years time folk will look back and say do you remember when?...
You drove your own car on your own
people drove at different speeds.
tailgating was considered bad form and yet now we all drive along 10 feet from next vehicle all under computer guidance
people speeded
some people got fined for speeding
you could go out and drive whenever you liked and wherever without additional charge just tax on fuel
it was really hard to Instagram, titter or facebook while on the move
hand held mobiles( as opposed to the new imprinted ones) were frowned on
having a kip while driving was err dangerous and now we all do it.
I wonder if they'll have wrestled the Momo steering wheel from my cold, rigour mortised hands by then? ;D
-
Having recently been retrained on this topic, it was made clear that speed was a contributing factor but generally never considered the route cause.
Clearly it results in greater energy in an impact and needs control.
What gets me is that mobile phone use, drugs/alcohol and, it would appear sadly. not wearing seat belts (this is increasing!) are massive problems and can be considered a route cause of death yet, the fines associated with these are still fixed penalties and not income related......go figure?
-
I have the following observations on Spanish habits.
I often watch and sometimes count the number of folk driving by breaking the law when I am having a roadside coffee. No seat belts is routine in small towns. Crash helmets on Motorbikes are still viewed as optional in towns. When worn they often do not have the strap fastened. I regularly see folk on mobile phones and some are texting or other labour intensive distracting tasks. On motorways the main problem is lane discipline especially for big lorries. I have seen these drivers operating devices but i suspect the main problem is nodding off. I ask Spanish friends about the seat belts and they openly admit they "don't bother " around town. Funny thing is I haven't come across or seen an accident for a couple of years now.
Oh and a reminder if you are going to Costa del Sol on holiday. They have loads of money generating speed cameras in and around Malaga. The A45 dual carriageway out of Malaga to inland was generating 600 plus a day each way last time I looked.50 mph down and 62 up.
-
Is there ANYONE outside an institute for the criminally insane who actually believes that any of these draconian speed regulations are for safety reasons - apart from those aforementioned Labour MPs?
Ron.
-
Anyone who describes themselves or their thoughts as progressive should be added to TB,s cull list. I hate that word. >:( ;D
TB probably thinks his cull list is progressive! ;D
So...... ::) ;)
Mmm, I doubt it. Probably common sense rather than progressive. I find it increasingly difficult to disagree with the idea tbh, but I (as a Brexiteer) am probably on it. ;D
I think he'd probably progressively cull us all! :o ;D
-
Is there ANYONE outside an institute for the criminally insane who actually believes that any of these draconian speed regulations are for safety reasons - apart from those aforementioned Labour MPs?
Ron.
Nope, and it was strange seeing three lots of coppers on the A64 coming home tonight, only usually one ;)
-
Ron, speed limits and their enforcement are primarily aimed at the 10% of irresponsible citizens who are on TB's 'list'. ::) ::) ::)
Things will start to change from 2019 onwards with mass trials of self driving cars, with their massed produced introduction from 2020 onwards, with Ford currently in the lead on this. Once fully integrated, by about 2030, non-self driving cars will be banned and with the 'right political will' speeds can start increasing due to the massive reduction in accidents. :y :y :y
-
but if policing were more about safety (???) and not revenue collection
Ron. With the greatest of respect, I don't think you have much of an idea as to how a Roads Policing department functions and the processes involved.
If policing were mainly about revenue collection, why, for first time offenders involved in road traffic matters such as speeding, seat belts, mobile phone use, do the forces offer educational programmes to these people as an alternative to being prosecuted? Whilst an administration fee would still apply to join the course, no "profit" is made by running these courses.
Are you aware that when police attend an RTC where there is an injury, and the motorist who caused it is dealt with for careless driving - it is commonplace for this person to be given a course, rather than points/fine and court appearances?
If it were just about money, would they not just be given a £100 fixed penalty?
-
Whilst updating our Farcebook profiles, having a fag, etc., as those don't seem to be enforced al all. >:(
This sort of thing, in addition to targeting drink drivers, uninsured motorists etc, is my bread and butter, and is actively targeted and dealt with.
The reason the public have a perception that these things don't seem to be enforced, is because the government have been constantly crippling police forces with cuts to funding, and as a result, traffic officers are becoming quite few and far between, in comparison to the amount of cars on the roads. Statistically, in probably all force areas, there are just nowhere near enough roads policing officers to deal with the true scale of the problem, and as such, only manage to scratch the surface.
-
Once again the police get the stick for Government funding cuts. ???
-
but if policing were more about safety (???) and not revenue collection
Ron. With the greatest of respect, I don't think you have much of an idea as to how a Roads Policing department functions and the processes involved.
If policing were mainly about revenue collection, why, for first time offenders involved in road traffic matters such as speeding, seat belts, mobile phone use, do the forces offer educational programmes to these people as an alternative to being prosecuted? Whilst an administration fee would still apply to join the course, no "profit" is made by running these courses.
Are you aware that when police attend an RTC where there is an injury, and the motorist who caused it is dealt with for careless driving - it is commonplace for this person to be given a course, rather than points/fine and court appearances?
If it were just about money, would they not just be given a £100 fixed penalty?
Given the cost of running the course compared to that of processing the penalty points, I suspect that there is more to be gained financially from the course.....
-
But James ......
If the powers that be were interested in prevention, there'd be more coppers on the road stopping you from speeding in the first place rather than catching speeders after the event with Gatsos/etc. Coppers would be sat before the bend in full view instead of hiding after the bend peeping out of the back of a plain van.
-
Whilst updating our Farcebook profiles, having a fag, etc., as those don't seem to be enforced al all. >:(
This sort of thing, in addition to targeting drink drivers, uninsured motorists etc, is my bread and butter, and is actively targeted and dealt with.
The reason the public have a perception that these things don't seem to be enforced, is because the government have been constantly crippling police forces with cuts to funding, and as a result, traffic officers are becoming quite few and far between, in comparison to the amount of cars on the roads. Statistically, in probably all force areas, there are just nowhere near enough roads policing officers to deal with the true scale of the problem, and as such, only manage to scratch the surface.
I don't doubt that it's due to lack of resources as opposed to a policy actively pursued by the Police, but disregard for the mobile phone law is so blatant now, that it would embarrass me if I were in uniform. Just on my commute this morning, a large Mercedes panel van started straying towards me from the opposite side of the carriageway. Driver had his head down staring into a phone. This was in a small village, kids playing on the pavements, cyclists passing, etc. Fortunately, he looked up before he hit anything or anybody.
I appreciate that this is resource intensive to Police, since you can't just park at the roadside and watch the fines come in, but I think the aggressive policing of speeding while other more important issues of driving standards perceived to be allowed to slip is not doing anybody any favours.
-
Sorry james, my anger wasn't directed at you; I know that you are a fine fellow , a man of integrity. I am in accord with Kevin and Andy, though, regarding the stealth tactics employed by some police: surely such tactics fly in the face of the "prevention rather than prosecution" ethos? If they maintained a highly visible presence, the declared objective of lowering speeds at danger spots would be more readily accomplished - BEFORE the event rather than after it, as Andy said.
What can be gained by such draconian measures as penalising drivers for straying 1mph over the posted limit? That is SO blatantly a revenue-raising tactic as to leave no doubt as to its purpose.
I do appreciate that for the most part police are carrying out government policy, but please do it openly and not sneakily.
Ron.
-
Sorry james, my anger wasn't directed at you; I know that you are a fine fellow , a man of integrity. I am in accord with Kevin and Andy, though, regarding the stealth tactics employed by some police: surely such tactics fly in the face of the "prevention rather than prosecution" ethos? If they maintained a highly visible presence, the declared objective of lowering speeds at danger spots would be more readily accomplished - BEFORE the event rather than after it, as Andy said.
What can be gained by such draconian measures as penalising drivers for straying 1mph over the posted limit? That is SO blatantly a revenue-raising tactic as to leave no doubt as to its purpose.
I do appreciate that for the most part police are carrying out government policy, but please do it openly and not sneakily.
Ron.
Far too simplistic and totally ignores "human nature" .. if they did what you suggest the speeding motorist would slow down when the camera/object is noticed, then immediately speed up again once past .. just like the idiots with fixed speed cameras... result .. nothing achieved ... if the camera/object is of an unknown position and "may" catch you unawares then the idea is , as you don't know where it is or when it is operational, you should obey the limits at all times.
There is no excuse for speeding, yes we all do it, but it is NOT "accidental" .. it is a deliberate action taken in defiance of the law, do it and accept the consequences, don't then whinge. You are an adult who makes conscious decisions, accept the responsibility for those decisions.
-
I for one would happily swap the Road Wombles for Police in cars :y
-
Nige, I would accept what you say if the speed limits were realistic. People exceed the posted limits because they are not realistic and are not appropriate for ALL circumstances/road conditions.
Apart from idiots/BMW drivers, most people drive at a speed which is safe and comfortable for the prevailing conditions - oftentimes lower than the posted limit if appropriate.
There is NEVER going to be universal agreement on this topic!
Ron.
-
Sorry james, my anger wasn't directed at you; I know that you are a fine fellow , a man of integrity. I am in accord with Kevin and Andy, though, regarding the stealth tactics employed by some police: surely such tactics fly in the face of the "prevention rather than prosecution" ethos? If they maintained a highly visible presence, the declared objective of lowering speeds at danger spots would be more readily accomplished - BEFORE the event rather than after it, as Andy said.
What can be gained by such draconian measures as penalising drivers for straying 1mph over the posted limit? That is SO blatantly a revenue-raising tactic as to leave no doubt as to its purpose.
I do appreciate that for the most part police are carrying out government policy, but please do it openly and not sneakily.
Ron.
I have never employed "stealth tactics" and don't know of any colleagues who have.
On the rare occasion I use a speed gun I will be wearing a long yellow coat with very clear markings along with hat and v clearly identifiable from a long way away. You don't NEED to be "sneaky" to detect speeders. It can be like shooting fish in a bowl even when done very overtly.
Out of interest, Would you consider driving around in an unmarked car, looking for say, mobile phone use, "sneaky"?
In the past 2 years, in the Thames Valley area, 145 people were injured as a direct result of drivers on the phone and 11 died. These are where it's proven not suspected. The true figure will be in excess of this.
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
-
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
Before I know if I should spend any time on this .. what kind of hat? The one with the bobble on top that looks hard, or a soft one? Y'know, just to gauge how much of a challenge it would be ;) ;D
-
I have never employed "stealth tactics" and don't know of any colleagues who have.
On the rare occasion I use a speed gun I will be wearing a long yellow coat with very clear markings along with hat and v clearly identifiable from a long way away. You don't NEED to be "sneaky" to detect speeders. It can be like shooting fish in a bowl even when done very overtly.
Out of interest, Would you consider driving around in an unmarked car, looking for say, mobile phone use, "sneaky"?
In the past 2 years, in the Thames Valley area, 145 people were injured as a direct result of drivers on the phone and 11 died. These are where it's proven not suspected. The true figure will be in excess of this.
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
In fairness, I've never seen a particularly stealthy speed trap (in this country :-[ ). That's fine by me, because it tends to select the drivers who are both speeding and not paying attention, who are the most dangerous.
Now, how to catch those who are not speeding and not paying attention? :-\
-
For what it's worth, my solution is to require all new drivers to complete 5 years driving something akin to a Series 1 Lotus 7 where if they lose concentration for seconds, they'll find themselves in a ditch, before progressing to a modern car where the driver is insulated from all the sensations and hazards generated by their motion. :y
-
i read once somewhere that an idea would be to put "empty " speed camera boxes up all over the place and then randomly have the actual real cameras moved from box to box
-
........
In fairness, I've never seen a particularly stealthy speed trap (in this country :-[ ). That's fine by me, because it tends to select the drivers who are both speeding and not paying attention, who are the most dangerous.
[/quote
So youve never seen them poking through a flap in the back of a Transit?
Like the silly bint in an A5 I saw the other day. Shifting lane to lane, all over the place ..... slow down for the camera ..... back on to her phone & then turned right atva set of lights from the left hand lane ....... unfortunately not a copper to be seen
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-39706454
How fast was he/she going? Just f***ing stupid.
-
Whilst updating our Farcebook profiles, having a fag, etc., as those don't seem to be enforced al all. >:(
This sort of thing, in addition to targeting drink drivers, uninsured motorists etc, is my bread and butter, and is actively targeted and dealt with.
The reason the public have a perception that these things don't seem to be enforced, is because the government have been constantly crippling police forces with cuts to funding, and as a result, traffic officers are becoming quite few and far between, in comparison to the amount of cars on the roads. Statistically, in probably all force areas, there are just nowhere near enough roads policing officers to deal with the true scale of the problem, and as such, only manage to scratch the surface.
With my track record I'm all in favour of that. ::) ;D
-
That's worrying, Andy. Not just the driving itself, but the fact that the police use footage from uncertified recording equipment whnich may not have any credibility, having possibly been manipulated by the other driver.
Where do you stop, with vigilantes? :-\
Ron.
-
For what it's worth, my solution is to require all new drivers to complete 5 years driving something akin to a Series 1 Lotus 7 where if they lose concentration for seconds, they'll find themselves in a ditch, before progressing to a modern car where the driver is insulated from all the sensations and hazards generated by their motion. :y
They just have to steer clear of Meganes, then.. :-X :P
-
That's worrying, Andy. Not just the driving itself, but the fact that the police use footage from uncertified recording equipment whnich may not have any credibility, having possibly been manipulated by the other driver.
Where do you stop, with vigilantes? :-\
Ron.
I don't think driving on the wrong side of the road, approaching a junction, requires any "manipulation" of video whatsoever.
That is no more "vigilante" than a home owner using CCTV footage to catch a burglar.
Both are breaking the law, however one actually risks killing other people, I know which I consider the more serious crime.... you probably disagree ....
-
For what it's worth, my solution is to require all new drivers to complete 5 years driving something akin to a Series 1 Lotus 7 where if they lose concentration for seconds, they'll find themselves in a ditch, before progressing to a modern car where the driver is insulated from all the sensations and hazards generated by their motion. :y
They just have to steer clear of Meganes, then.. :-X :P
Doesn't anybody with a modicum of sense? ;)
-
That's worrying, Andy. Not just the driving itself, but the fact that the police use footage from uncertified recording equipment whnich may not have any credibility, having possibly been manipulated by the other driver.
Where do you stop, with vigilantes? :-\
Ron.
How could that footage have possibly been manipulated?
-
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
Before I know if I should spend any time on this .. what kind of hat? The one with the bobble on top that looks hard, or a soft one? Y'know, just to gauge how much of a challenge it would be ;) ;D
It's worth the effort. Mrs LD got a Speed Awareness course for 43 in a 40 ::)
-
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
Before I know if I should spend any time on this .. what kind of hat? The one with the bobble on top that looks hard, or a soft one? Y'know, just to gauge how much of a challenge it would be ;) ;D
It's worth the effort. Mrs LD got a Speed Awareness course for 43 in a 40 ::)
let's be honest now... if she was actually doing 43 then her speedo would have been reading 46-49 ... as all speedos over read by between 3 and 6 mph , depending on the manufacturer .. although they are allowed a much larger bound of error ....
"The law for car speedometers in the UK
The UK law is based on the EU standard, with some minor changes. A speedo must never show less than the actual speed, and must never show more than 110% of actual speed + 6.25mph. So if your true speed is 40mph, your speedo could legally be reading up to 50.25mph but never less than 40mph. Or to put it another way, if your speedo is reading 50mph, you won’t be doing more than 50mph but it’s possible you might actually only be travelling at 40mph.
To ensure that they comply with the law and make sure that their speedometers are never showing less than true speed under any foreseeable circumstances, car manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to read ‘high’ by a certain amount. "
http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/how-accurate-is-a-car-speedometer/
-
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
Before I know if I should spend any time on this .. what kind of hat? The one with the bobble on top that looks hard, or a soft one? Y'know, just to gauge how much of a challenge it would be ;) ;D
It's worth the effort. Mrs LD got a Speed Awareness course for 43 in a 40 ::)
I got a snotty letter for 30 in a 30. ;)
-
Being done at 31 in a 30 is a myth. If you can find me a successful prosecution for such an event, I will upload you a YouTube video of me eating my own hat :y
Before I know if I should spend any time on this .. what kind of hat? The one with the bobble on top that looks hard, or a soft one? Y'know, just to gauge how much of a challenge it would be ;) ;D
It's worth the effort. Mrs LD got a Speed Awareness course for 43 in a 40 ::)
let's be honest now... if she was actually doing 43 then her speedo would have been reading 46-49 ... as all speedos over read by between 3 and 6 mph , depending on the manufacturer .. although they are allowed a much larger bound of error ....
"The law for car speedometers in the UK
The UK law is based on the EU standard, with some minor changes. A speedo must never show less than the actual speed, and must never show more than 110% of actual speed + 6.25mph. So if your true speed is 40mph, your speedo could legally be reading up to 50.25mph but never less than 40mph. Or to put it another way, if your speedo is reading 50mph, you won’t be doing more than 50mph but it’s possible you might actually only be travelling at 40mph.
To ensure that they comply with the law and make sure that their speedometers are never showing less than true speed under any foreseeable circumstances, car manufacturers will normally deliberately calibrate their speedos to read ‘high’ by a certain amount. "
http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/how-accurate-is-a-car-speedometer/
Tyre wear and diameter will affect speedometer accuracy. Not sure if it has a significant effect.
-
Speaking of speeding how long do the points stay on your licence?
I still have points from 2013.
-
Speaking of speeding how long do the points stay on your licence?
I still have points from 2013.
For either 3 years or 10 years, dependent on the offence and the ruling of the court ;)
-
Speaking of speeding how long do the points stay on your licence?
I still have points from 2013.
For either 3 years or 10 years, dependent on the offence and the ruling of the court ;)
A decade......for simply speeding. :o :o
I'm informed that if you speed in France the points remain for a maximum of 12 months.
-
Speaking of speeding how long do the points stay on your licence?
I still have points from 2013.
For either 3 years or 10 years, dependent on the offence and the ruling of the court ;)
A decade......for simply speeding. :o :o
I'm informed that if you speed in France the points remain for a maximum of 12 months.
No, not necessarily. As said Opti, it depends on the offence and the ruling of the court. ie if you speed at over 100 mph, and it is considered reckless, you may well get a short ban as well as the points which may last 10 years. If you are convicted of DD you will be banned and have that noted on your licence with penalty points, they will last 10 years. A simple speeding of 40 in a 30 mph area will,usually just warrant the points being on your licence for the 3 years.
Obviously there are many variations of this, but it is down as always to the court to decide within their remit ;)
-
Speeding and the like, 4 years. Drunk driving, 11 years.
-
CD is four :-X
-
Speeding and the like, 4 years. Drunk driving, 11 years.
But the points only stay on your licence for 3 or 10 years,.
With speeding it depends on the other circumstances around the offence, and as I stated, it may lead to points on your licence for 10 years. ;)
-
Speeding and the like, 4 years. Drunk driving, 11 years.
But the points only stay on your licence for 3 or 10 years,.
With speeding it depends on the other circumstances around the offence, and as I stated, it may lead to points on your licence for 10 years. ;)
No. The conviction is still active for three or ten years, so any further infringements will bring a harsher penalty. The actual points stay on your licence for a year after the conviction is spent.
-
Speeding and the like, 4 years. Drunk driving, 11 years.
But the points only stay on your licence for 3 or 10 years,.
With speeding it depends on the other circumstances around the offence, and as I stated, it may lead to points on your licence for 10 years. ;)
No. The conviction is still active for three or ten years, so any further infringements will bring a harsher penalty. The actual points stay on your licence for a year after the conviction is spent.
This ;)
-
Speeding and the like, 4 years. Drunk driving, 11 years.
But the points only stay on your licence for 3 or 10 years,.
With speeding it depends on the other circumstances around the offence, and as I stated, it may lead to points on your licence for 10 years. ;)
No. The conviction is still active for three or ten years, so any further infringements will bring a harsher penalty. The actual points stay on your licence for a year after the conviction is spent.
I misunderstood that one ::) ::) :-[ :y
-
last time I got nicked for speeding I got an endorsement and fine.Endorsement stayed "live" for 3yrs and after 4yrs could be removed from licence,but you had to send licence off to have it removed.Personally I'd much sooner see more police on the roads as not only can they detect more offences than cameras can but they can also use discretion where appropriate.
-
Speeding and the like, 4 years. Drunk driving, 11 years.
But the points only stay on your licence for 3 or 10 years,.
With speeding it depends on the other circumstances around the offence, and as I stated, it may lead to points on your licence for 10 years. ;)
No. The conviction is still active for three or ten years, so any further infringements will bring a harsher penalty. The actual points stay on your licence for a year after the conviction is spent.
Why?
If the points are valid for 3 years they should then be removed from your licence. WTF are they dong there for an extra year? >:(
-
slightly off topic .. but wish this happened all over the country and not just manchester ...
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton/15241785.Seen_a_lot_of_police_in_the_town_centre_this_morning__This_is_why/
-
slightly off topic .. but wish this happened all over the country and not just manchester ...
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton/15241785.Seen_a_lot_of_police_in_the_town_centre_this_morning__This_is_why/
They do something similar round my way now and again, but on the busy A road, whereas they actually need to do it around town.
-
slightly off topic .. but wish this happened all over the country and not just manchester ...
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/bolton/15241785.Seen_a_lot_of_police_in_the_town_centre_this_morning__This_is_why/
That's the road I use to get to work ...... its lucky I was already there by 0800hrs ::)
-
Have you something to hide Andy ::)
-
Have you something to hide Andy ::)
Not much you can hide in a Smart Fortwo ;)
If only plod were as proactive 30 yds away when the w4nker taxis pull up in lane 1 (& one occasion in lane 2) of the dual carriageway outside the railway station despite a bloody great layby a couple of car lengths away.